And, if you've been paying attention for any amount of time, you've already figured that one out for yourself. The people at the top call the shots, period. Some have foolishly believed that we had a democracy, but that has never been the case, not even going back to the 'founding fathers' who were all about control.

For those who voted for Bernie in the New Hampshire primary, the truth is painful to behold. The fact that their candidate beat the opponent by 22 percent seems joyous until they realized that the party insiders had already decided in favor of the opponent. As a result of the party leaders, both candidates have captured exactly the same number of delegates from the primary. That 22 percent more of the citizens wanted Bernie means absolutely nothing in this rigged system where the party bosses make all of the decisions.

Democratic National Committee chair and Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz explained the motive behind the Democratic Party’s appointment of unpledged delegates, also called “superdelegates,” who are former party leaders and elected officials who are allowed to ignore the outcome of primary elections’ popular vote totals and instead vote for the presidential candidate of their personal choice at the party’s nominating convention.

CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Wasserman Schultz on Thursday, “Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 percentage points, the biggest victory in a contested Democratic primary there since John F. Kennedy, but it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving the Granite State with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire’s superdelegates, these party insiders. What do you tell voters who are new to the process who says[sic] this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?”​Wasserman Schultz replied, “Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available during the primaries in Iowa and in New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates— those that are tied to the candidate that they are pledged to support, and they receive a proportional number of delegates going into our convention.”

She added, “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists. We are as a Democratic Party really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grassroots activists and diverse, committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend, and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn’t competition between them.”

Tapper responded, “I’m not sure that that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let’s move on.”

Responding to Wasserman Schultz’s comments, Hot Air’s Jazz Shaw voiced concerns that the superdelegate system seems to be disenfranchising Sen. Sanders’ voters and asked, “There were a total of 151,584 votes cast for Bernie Sanders, giving him 15 delegates. That means that 10,105 people had to drag themselves out in the snow for each delegate he received. Why should voters have any faith in a system where one person appointed by the party leadership can cancel out the votes of more than ten thousand people who chose the other candidate?”

​The electoral process is just as "rigged" as the economy, Bernie Sanders supporters are charging after it was reported that, despite his double-digit trouncing of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, he may walk away with the same number of delegates as the establishment favorite.

​"The race for the Democratic Party nomination should be decided by who gets the most votes," one petition states, "and not who has the most support from party insiders."

​As Princeton University professor Matt Karp explained on Democracy Now! on Thursday, Sanders' candidacy threatens to expose what he says is an essentially undemocratic system.

​"It turns out, the Democratic party decides its nominee in a massively undemocratic way—and is a ticking time bomb for the party and its voter base if Sanders keeps winning," Guardian columnist Trevor Timm wrote on Thursday.

In other words, it could make the primary elections meaningless. Bernie could end up decisively winning the popular vote but still have the nomination stripped away from him at this summer’s convention.

​The entire process, Karp continued, exposes another leg of what he refers to as "the invisible primary," where "media elites, big donors, union leadership" and the heads of other Democratic party-aligned groups have "pushed back against the Sanders insurgency" and "launched a consolidated effort to [stand] up for Clinton as the establishment candidate."

​This political season seems decidedly more bizarre than others have been. It's not just the fact that someone as arrogant and ignorant about real life as Donald Trump is leading on the Republican side. What really troubles me is the assertion that we ought not aspire to achieve the best, most equitable and just solutions to our most serious problems because that is unrealistic, politically infeasible and dooms us to fail. This criticism of Bernie Sanders' platform is really unsettling.

​The less flattering argument about Bernie's platform is that somehow the issues he addresses and solutions proposed are less well thought out or reflect some lesser degree of intelligent problem solving. That is insulting and just flat wrong. Every issue—from Medicare for all, single-payer healthcare to tuition-free public college to an end to mass incarceration to expanding and protecting Social Security to implementing a financial transaction tax to pay for these incredibly important plans—is grounded in the reality that so many people are being harmed by the lack of appropriate policy change for decades in Washington, D.C. For many years, Bernie stood alone as he demanded a different way to conduct business.

The actual truth is that the corporate elite, the leadership of this country want to maintain the status quo. They are the ones who write the rules and they are the ones who make the decisions. They will be the ones to decide on Social Security, Medicare, Taxes, and every thing else. They will make sure to install into the white house someone with whom they can 'work'.

If the people of this country want something different, they will have to struggle to bring it about and it will not be easy. It will be an uphill fight all of the way, and that's the truth !!!